Author
Topic: Clock Management - End of Game (Read 1944 times)

Less than one minute remaining in the game with A trailing and driving inside B's 30 yard line. A has no timeouts remaining. With the clock running A rushes to the LOS and takes the snap and legally grounds the pass to stop the clock. However, two A players were not set before the snap, resulting in a legal shift at the snap.

Question: After the penalty administration, under 3-4-6, should I have started the clock on the ready? Can A's illegal shift in this situation be interpreted as conversing time illegally?

Less than one minute remaining in the game with A trailing and driving inside B's 30 yard line. A has no timeouts remaining. With the clock running A rushes to the LOS and takes the snap and legally grounds the pass to stop the clock. However, two A players were not set before the snap, resulting in a legal shift at the snap.

Question: After the penalty administration, under 3-4-6, should I have started the clock on the ready? Can A's illegal shift in this situation be interpreted as conversing time illegally?

3-4-6 specifically says ďattempts to,Ē meaning there has to be intent to conserve time illegally. That didnít happen in this play.

I agree with everyone else. The foul in this case did not benefit A in any way. It only cost them 5 yards. Now, if they had been ahead, and gained an extra down (and accompanying :25), then it would be a different story. But then they most likely would not have spiked the ball.

Welcome, Gorby, to our Forum. May you find it both enjoyable and informative. Four wisemen have already spoken and I share their opinions.

And I respectfully disagree.

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

IMHO, 3-4-6 could be applied if just the QB & snapper ran up and snapped/spiked the ball BUT if teammates were trying to get legally set AND the spike was legal, I'd start on snap.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

Seconded. If a team is trying to conserve time by hurrying to the line for a spike, they have to do it legally.

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

I agree with this. I'm starting on the RFP and probably not being diligent about it so the offense has plenty of time to get set. This is exactly the type of play that caused NCAA to make this situation a false start so it could be subject to the 10-second runoff. A team gained an advantage in a bowl game by committing this foul when the entire team couldn't get set for a last second FG attempt. It did cause them to stop the clock for enforcement, but it gave the team plenty of time to get their FG team set and kick the game tying FG. They won in OT. Whether or not they did it intentionally, they still benefit from the foul from a clock perspective so start it on the RFP.

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

There was a similar Case Book play (it still may be in there) that had this type of situation and the ruling stated ..."in this situation the Referee shall stop the clock, enforce the penalty, and wind the clock without allowing A the opportunity to snap the football and the game is over.Thats pretty straightforward.

Let's assume that when the play is over there is 0:01 (or 0:02 or 0:03 etc) remaining in the game. It's obvious that time would have expired before the snap (or during th spike) if A had taken the necessary time to get all players legally set.

Are you really going to allow them to run another play gained by cheating?

Case Play 7.5.2 Situation F., Fouls Prior to "Spike", spells it out pretty clearly. It does come with the comment at the end that the Referee must determine if it was done intentionally or not. We're not going to agree on a generalized hypothetical here because it will vary on a case by case basis. If there's confusion and hurrying and somebody is just out of place at the snap, it's easy to see the cases where it's not intentional. If the QB alone runs up the to the ball, has the receiver snap it to him and spike it immediately without waiting for the rest of the team to catch up (6 bubbas chugging 80 yards down the field slowly, and not even close to the line when it's snapped) -- yeah, THAT'S intentional and I'd wind it on the ready.

Case Play 7.5.2 Situation F., Fouls Prior to "Spike", spells it out pretty clearly. It does come with the comment at the end that the Referee must determine if it was done intentionally or not. We're not going to agree on a generalized hypothetical here because it will vary on a case by case basis. If there's confusion and hurrying and somebody is just out of place at the snap, it's easy to see the cases where it's not intentional. If the QB alone runs up the to the ball, has the receiver snap it to him and spike it immediately without waiting for the rest of the team to catch up (6 bubbas chugging 80 yards down the field slowly, and not even close to the line when it's snapped) -- yeah, THAT'S intentional and I'd wind it on the ready.

Like you said, the case play clearly states the referee must determine if it was intentional. With the original play, it is plainly obvious IMO that this is not intentional. Therefore, clock is on the snap. The rule is in place to prevent teams from intentionally abusing the timing rules to gain an advantage. If the intent is not there, we canít invoke 3-4-6. I agree with your second scenario as being intentional, so 3-4-6 should be invoked there.

With the original play, it is plainly obvious IMO that this is not intentional. Therefore, clock is on the snap.

I disagree. Although I do agree that this is a pure judgment call, QB's are coached from the youth levels on "spike" plays to scan the formation, make sure that everyone is set then go. If, like it appears here, he did not do that trying to hurry and save an extra second or two, that crosses into the intentional category. Again, a judgment call, but if QB just takes the snap without checking his formation, I'd go on the RFP.

Logged

It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

I disagree. Although I do agree that this is a pure judgment call, QB's are coached from the youth levels on "spike" plays to scan the formation, make sure that everyone is set then go. If, like it appears here, he did not do that trying to hurry and save an extra second or two, that crosses into the intentional category. Again, a judgment call, but if QB just takes the snap without checking his formation, I'd go on the RFP.

I respect your reasoning. At the end of the day as you said, this is a judgment call. I can see both sides of the issue and both have standing IMO.

Judgement is involved with most of what we do. We shouldn't give the team that fouled an advantage because of the foul. Wind the clock!

We also canít create rules that donít exist. 3-4-6 is very clear that we have to judge intent, not advantage gained. If you judge thereís no intent by the offender to abuse the timing rules, even if you donít want to give the team an advantage, you canít invoke 3-4-6. The question isnít ďdoes this team gain an advantageĒ itís ďdid this team intentionally try to abuse the timing rules?Ē

Maybe I am missing something here but with the new timing rule this doesn't B get to choose whether the clock starts on the snap or the ready?

The offended team can choose to start the clock on the snap if it would otherwise start on the ready since this is inside of 2 minutes of a half, as long as they accept the penalty. If we donít invoke 3-4-6, the clock is on the snap so there is no option.

Maybe I am missing something here but with the new timing rule this doesn't B get to choose whether the clock starts on the snap or the ready?

The new rule is a "one way street". If the clock is scheduled to start on the ready, the offended team can choose to start on the snap. If the clock is scheduled to start on the snap, there is no choice by the offended but the ref could apply 3-4-6 ,if he ruled intent.

I have one of my proposed rule changes for this scenario. I don't really care if it gets passed or not, so this is at the bottom of the list of proposals I have. But I figured I'd bring it out since it's relevant to the discussion:

3-4-2 The clock shall start with the ready-for-play signal on a down beginning with a snap if the clock was stopped for any reason other than specified in Rule 3-4-3 or an untimed down:d. If Team A fouls while spiking the ball under rule 7-5-2e-Exception, the clock shall always start on the ready-for-play signal.

3-4-3 The clock shall start with the snap or when any free kick is touched, other than first touching by K, if the clock was stopped because: e. A legal or illegal forward pass is incomplete, unless 3-4-2d applies.

Rationale:When the offense is spiking the ball, their main objective is to stop the clock to conserve time. I believe this should be executed by the offense free of foul to get the full benefit of the rule. Currently, if Team A is in an illegal formation, illegally in motion, or illegally shifting when they spike the ball, they would be penalized 5 yards, but the clock would start on the snap. This would enable them to run another play or send their field goal team onto the field without the fear of the half ending before they can snap the ball. They have effectively accomplished their goal of stopping the clock even though they did something illegal to do it.

With this rule change proposal, the clock would start on the ready for play signal and effectively neutralize the offenseís advantage in this situation.

I agree with this. I'm starting on the RFP and probably not being diligent about it so the offense has plenty of time to get set. This is exactly the type of play that caused NCAA to make this situation a false start so it could be subject to the 10-second runoff. A team gained an advantage in a bowl game by committing this foul when the entire team couldn't get set for a last second FG attempt. It did cause them to stop the clock for enforcement, but it gave the team plenty of time to get their FG team set and kick the game tying FG. They won in OT. Whether or not they did it intentionally, they still benefit from the foul from a clock perspective so start it on the RFP.

That's not exactly the same thing. the foul in the video was illegal substitution. there were 11 players set for a second. Plus, that doesn't seem to be intentional. So, help me understand the NCAA rule. Now, if A snaps the ball before A12 gets off the field, it's a 10 second runoff?

I disagree - this play is exactly the same thing. The QB is looking directly at the mass of players with multiple replacement/replaced players still well in the field of play, looks back at the clock, put his hands on his helmet, immediately goes under center and calls for the snap. You can't get any more intentional than that. He intentionally did not wait until there were only 11 players in formation and for those 11 players to be set before calling for the ball.

Logged

It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

I disagree - this play is exactly the same thing. The QB is looking directly at the mass of players with multiple replacement/replaced players still well in the field of play, looks back at the clock, put his hands on his helmet, immediately goes under center and calls for the snap. You can't get any more intentional than that. He intentionally did not wait until there were only 11 players in formation and for those 11 players to be set before calling for the ball.

But if you count, there were 11 players in the formation and all 11 were set. It’s easy to assume he thought the four running off would be off before the snap, or at least that the risk was worth the possible reward. I can see a blatant false start being obvious, but these type plays are somewhat more difficult.